A limited Israeli attack on Iran.. Did Netanyahu relieve Tehran of the embarrassment of responding?

Amidst conflicting information and interpretations, the Israeli response to Iran came, and Tehran stated that it was limited and contained, while Tel Aviv shows that it achieved its goals by destroying the specified targets, but several indicators indicate that it was below the high ceilings set by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Israeli and American sources say that the attack was carried out in 3 different waves for 3 hours, and was carried out by about 100 fighters, targeting 20 sites including military complexes, air defense systems, missile production facilities, and missile launchers in the Tehran regions, as well as in Khuzestan and Ilam in the west of the country.

For its part, Iran downplayed the scale of the attack, noting that it only caused limited damage in some places, and considered Israel's claims about attacking 20 targets with 100 aircraft "false and unrealistic," but the air defense command admitted that Israel attacked military centers, and was able to intercept the missiles that were launched.

Iranian media also published videos from several cities in Iran to confirm that life is going on normally, and Iranian networks were keen to ridicule the Israeli attack, and published videos of residents mocking it, as well as a video comparing the Iranian attack on Israel and the Israeli attack on Iran.

Netanyahu under fire

The data indicates that the nature of the attack ultimately yielded to American pressure, which made it limited, in contrast to the high ceilings set by Netanyahu and his government, which were pushing for strikes against the Iranian nuclear program infrastructure, facilities, oil and gas installations, and even the overthrow of the regime, according to statements by the far-right Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich.

The Washington Post reported that "Israel planned its attack on the one hand with the aim of reducing the number of casualties, and on the other hand keeping its results at a level that would allow Iran to deny the serious damage and contain the situation."

Other sources, including the American website Axios and the Israeli Walla, reported that Israel informed Iran on Friday, via a third party, of the attack and its objectives. The Maariv newspaper also reported, citing three informed sources, one of whom said, “The Israelis informed the Iranians in advance, in general, what they would attack and what they would not attack.”

Two other sources said that Israel warned the Iranians against responding to the attack, stressing that if Iran responded, Israel would carry out another attack that would be more powerful, especially if Israeli civilians were harmed, according to the Israeli newspaper Maariv.

If these reports are true, it is difficult to confirm that the strikes caused severe and embarrassing damage to the Iranian side, and it is likely that they were calculated and controlled by Israel, to please the American side and out of fear of a comprehensive war or an Iranian counter-response in which the attacks would turn into a series of mutual and continuous strikes.

On the other hand, analysts believe that the Israeli strikes that targeted military bases were primarily aimed at neutralizing the air defense systems to a large extent, which are difficult to rebuild quickly, and made Iranian airspace vulnerable to any other Israeli attack that would be more powerful and destructive, in a message to Iran to refrain from directing any other strike against Israel and to maintain the military status quo at the current stage.

In response to the attack, there are angry reactions in Israel, questioning its usefulness and seeing it as a “missed opportunity to settle the final score with Iran.” In this context, opposition leader Yair Lapid said that “the decision not to attack strategic and economic targets in Iran was wrong. We could have, and should have, imposed a heavy price on Iran.”

For her part, Likud MK Tali Gottlieb criticized the scale and objectives of the Israeli attack, saying, “Not attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities will be a cry for generations. Not attacking Iran’s oil reserves is a grave mistake. We missed an opportunity to weaken Iran’s chances of becoming a nuclear power for many years.”

Gottlieb questioned the story of destroying Iran's entire ballistic missile system in a single attack, noting that attacks on military facilities do not change the balance of terror equation in the Middle East - in her estimation - and she saw that what happened "is a surrender to the Biden administration, which did not think for a moment about Israel's interests."

For his part, Avigdor Lieberman, head of the Yisrael Beiteinu party and a member of the Knesset, criticized the failure to strike Iranian nuclear and energy facilities, saying, “Unfortunately, it seems that instead of exacting a real price, the Israeli government is once again content with grandiose measures and public relations... It is time to act in a way that reflects our position of strength, and not just talk about it.”

These Israeli statements reflect that the strike against Iran was calculated, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ultimately succumbed to American pressure and to the pressures of battles on other fronts that he had not decided, including the clear stumbling block in southern Lebanon against Hezbollah, and to fears that there was a war that he no longer believed he could win.

Netanyahu was one of the most vocal advocates of striking the Iranian nuclear project during the ongoing war, and the United States made great efforts to dissuade him from doing so, according to leaks. In August 2012, he had given the green light to carry out an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, but similar American efforts that lasted for about two months made him cancel them in October.

Breakeven and calming space calculations

Iran has not officially disclosed the extent of the losses caused by the Israeli strike, but it insists that it caused “minimal damage” and that most of the air targets were intercepted. Analysts point out that Iran’s military capabilities were not significantly damaged, and the strike did not eliminate Tehran’s ability to mount a strong response, which is always on the table.

In general, the Israeli strike was calculated, proportionate, and without significant losses, and leaves room for calm - according to analysts - and also leaves room for Iran to maneuver in responding and postpone or suspend it, depending on the circumstances and developments.

Depending on the size of the "limited" Israeli strike, Iran will not be obligated to respond quickly, and it is likely to leave it as a deterrent and pressure card on Israel, within the calculations of diplomatic moves and negotiations, at a time when reports indicate that the United States informed Tehran - through an intermediary - of the need to avoid responding, and that it will increase its efforts in the coming days to reach an agreement to end the war in Gaza and Lebanon.

Iran is calculating that its response this time could expose it to greater threats, as it will lift American pressure on Netanyahu not to attack nuclear facilities and vital infrastructure, which could drag it into an ongoing military conflict with Israel and perhaps the United States.

Iran also realizes that Israel is suffering heavy losses in southern Lebanon and is suffering from a severe war of attrition, as Hezbollah has regained its military balance and the Israeli army has failed to achieve any ground penetration, which reduces the burden of direct intervention.

According to analysts, it is important for Iran to avoid the Israeli “trap” and being dragged into a comprehensive military conflict with American participation, and to return to the path of settling the nuclear file with the West - especially after Netanyahu once again backed down from targeting nuclear facilities - with the aim of easing or lifting sanctions. Several parties in Iran are adopting this proposal.

Israel had taken weeks to study the response to Iran, and as Iran has done before, it may take time to study the counter-response - if it happens - which gives it room to arrange its political cards in negotiations with the United States, or its military cards, including the "axis of resistance", which still exists despite an Israeli war that has lasted more than a year.

Some analysts believe that Iran will not be interested in responding much at the current stage, and may allow itself time to reformulate its nuclear doctrine and study the possibility of achieving a breakthrough in the field of nuclear weapons, which may provide it with the "ultimate deterrence" against Israel as well as the United States.

Certainly, the Israeli attack, with its size and nature, did not resolve the ongoing conflict in the region, but it kept it relatively away from an imminent regional explosion, and eased the “tension” of Iran, which has calculations and arrangements that go beyond the issue of immediate response, and it also achieved some of Israel’s goals, which is stuck in its wars.

Source: Al Jazeera